While quantum computers are not yet capable of breaking Bitcoin, significant blockchains are gearing up for a future where that may become a possibility.
In the last week, Aptos introduced the idea of post-quantum signature support as Solana experimented with quantum-resistant transactions. Additionally, segments of the Bitcoin community have increased their calls for expedited quantum-safe upgrades.
These advancements reflect a growing unease within the crypto space. Investors claim that the downplaying of quantum risks by prominent figures is negatively impacting Bitcoin’s (BTC) price, which has decreased by 24% over the last three months.
While alternative blockchains are testing post-quantum defenses via opt-in upgrades and test networks, Bitcoin remains internally conflicted about how openly and urgently it should tackle quantum risks.
How blockchains prepare without raising alarms
Ethereum has clearly articulated why quantum computing should now be considered an engineering issue rather than a distant hypothetical scenario.
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has stated that even a low-probability event necessitates early action when the stakes are high and the time needed to transition global systems is measured in years.
According to forecasting models, there’s an estimated 20% chance that quantum computers capable of breaking current public-key cryptography could appear by 2030, with a median prediction closer to 2040. Buterin has indicated that while no machines currently exist that can compromise Bitcoin or Ethereum, waiting for absolute certainty poses its own risks, as transitioning a global network to post-quantum schemes can be time-consuming.
This perspective has started to resonate across other prominent blockchains, especially those that can innovate without reopening foundational debates.
Aptos has proposed to include post-quantum signature support at the account level through an opt-in upgrade that would keep existing accounts unchanged. The plan utilizes a hash-based signature approach and is intended as future-proofing rather than a reaction to an immediate threat. Users can opt for the new scheme if they desire, without mandating a network-wide transition.
Related: What if quantum computers have already broken Bitcoin?
Solana has taken a similar approach by focusing on testing rather than outright implementation. In collaboration with post-quantum security firm Project Eleven, the network recently operated a dedicated testnet using quantum-resistant signatures to evaluate whether such measures can be incorporated without compromising performance or compatibility.
Bitcoin’s quantum discourse is fundamentally about trust
Bitcoin utilizes elliptic curve cryptography to verify ownership. Control over assets is established through a private key, with only the matching public key being displayed on-chain.
In theory, a sufficiently advanced quantum computer using Shor’s algorithm could reverse-engineer a public key to retrieve the associated private one, enabling an attacker to access funds without raising any immediate alarm. From the network’s point of view, those coins would shift as if their owner had initiated a transaction.
Even advocates of post-quantum enhancements generally concede that cryptographically relevant machines remain years away. Yet, the debate within Bitcoin’s community revolves around the appropriate response to a risk that is remote, uncertain, and hard to detect once it emerges.
Some developers and long-time Bitcoin cryptographers argue that framing quantum computing as an urgent concern is counterproductive.
Blockstream CEO Adam Back has consistently downplayed immediate quantum anxieties, asserting that feasible quantum attacks are still decades away. He argues that inflating concerns around quantum risks breeds panic and drives markets to react to a threat that is not yet present.
Conversely, investors and researchers contend that even a low-probability event is significant for an asset whose worth is tied to long-term confidence. Castle Island Ventures partner Nic Carter has labeled the complete disregard of quantum risk by key developers as bearish.
Craig Warmke from the Bitcoin Policy Institute has also cautioned that perceived indifference is prompting some investors to diversify away from Bitcoin, irrespective of whether underlying technical anxieties are accurately articulated.
This dynamic explains why proposals like Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 360, which aims to introduce quantum-resistant signature options, elicit strong reactions even in their early stages.
Related: Bitcoin separates from stocks in the latter half of 2025
Proponents view early developments as a method to alleviate uncertainty and indicate readiness. Detractors perceive the same discussions as legitimizing a speculative risk and generating confusion about Bitcoin’s strength.
Why quantum uncertainty holds distinct significance for Bitcoin
Currently, quantum computers are not capable of breaking Bitcoin or any significant blockchain. However, the uncertainty surrounding quantum risks is already affecting how various networks choose to communicate and how investors interpret those actions.
Outside of Bitcoin, post-quantum initiatives have been framed as infrastructural advancements. Opt-in upgrades and testing networks allow blockchains to demonstrate preparedness without compelling users or markets to reevaluate current security assumptions. This method minimizes the reputational risks associated with early preparation while maintaining flexibility in the face of shifting timelines.
Bitcoin, however, operates under different conditions. Since its value is closely linked to long-term assurances regarding security and durability, discussions surrounding the future-proofing of its cryptography tend to attract heightened scrutiny. What might be considered standard contingency planning elsewhere is perceived as commentary on Bitcoin’s foundational strengths.
Key figures in the Bitcoin community are concerned that emphasizing distant risks may lead to misunderstanding and panic. Simultaneously, investors fear that downplaying these risks signals a deficiency in contingency planning. Both sides are responding to the manner in which confidence is shaped amid unclear timelines.
This quantum discourse indicates that for Bitcoin, managing the conversation around long-term risks could be as crucial as managing the risks themselves.
Magazine: Big questions: Would Bitcoin endure a 10-year power outage?
